AG Redevelopment latest

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Natchfever said:

Could Lansdown proceed with the Sporting Quarter discreet from Longmoor if he really wanted ?

We could build tomorrow however the funding was coming from developing longmoor too.

Personally think its crazy that we didnt purchase this land and then build a new stadium with the option to expand it. 

[Lanterne Rouge]

Would be worth just knocking everything down and using the site for matchday parking  before work starts wouldn`t it.

[ashton_fan]

On 22/02/2024 at 14:53, Natchfever said:

Could Lansdown proceed with the Sporting Quarter discreet from Longmoor if he really wanted ?

This project isn't the same as the football where the money is written off, it's meant to make a profit.

[Natchfever]

3 minutes ago, ashton_fan said:

This project isn't the same as the football where the money is written off, it's meant to make a profit.

Understood, but its unlikely hed lose the JR isnt it ?

If so I cant imagine cash flow is an issue for him.

[ashton_fan]

1 minute ago, Natchfever said:

Understood, but its unlikely hed lose the JR isnt it ?

If so I cant imagine cash flow is an issue for him.

It's a lot of money, he won't have that available as loose cash. Most of his money will be alresdy invested in other projects I would have thought.

[Galley is our king]

1 hour ago, Natchfever said:

Understood, but its unlikely hed lose the JR isnt it ?

If so I cant imagine cash flow is an issue for him.

Who's saying he won't lose the JR?

Remember he lost out trying to provide us a new stadium on a former tip that just a few saw as a modern day hanging gardens of babylon.

Town green my ass...

[Natchfever]

Just now, Galley is our king said:

Who's saying he won't lose the JR?

Remember he lost out trying to provide us a new stadium on a former tip that just a few saw as a modern day hanging gardens of babylon.

Town green my ass...

I think he would have won that ultimately had he wanted but ancient history of course.

This one seems different with the other mob lookibg for a handout.

[CyderInACan]

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/date-set-ashton-gate-sporting-9376542

[Kid in the Riot]

38 minutes ago, CyderInACan said:

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/date-set-ashton-gate-sporting-9376542

Can't believe it made it to court. Hopefully get thrown out quickly. 

[BS3_RED]

43 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Can't believe it made it to court. Hopefully get thrown out quickly. 

We all thought that with the dog walkers. 

Just now, BS3_RED said:

We all thought that with the dog walkers. 

Oh and the ice skaters

[Sleepy1968]

16 minutes ago, BS3_RED said:

We all thought that with the dog walkers. 

Oh and the ice skaters

Allegedly the Green Party were running interference on that.

I'll refrain from expressing my utter contempt for them.

[Port Said Red]

2 hours ago, Sleepy1968 said:

Allegedly the Green Party were running interference on that.

I'll refrain from expressing my utter contempt for them.

It's good you said allegedly, because I was talking to one of the Green Councillors for our area at a friend's 50th party last weekend and this subject came up. 

She said there were initial concerns but they were all in favour of the compromise deal that SL offered, i.e.a fully landscaped  green area for locals between them and the stadium complex, but they were at the mercy of the group of residents (was it 27?) that wouldn't compromise at all.

Maybe you should temper your contempt or channel it in a different direction?

[Sleepy1968]

26 minutes ago, Port Said Red said:

It's good you said allegedly, because I was talking to one of the Green Councillors for our area at a friend's 50th party last weekend and this subject came up. 

She said there were initial concerns but they were all in favour of the compromise deal that SL offered, i.e.a fully landscaped  green area for locals between them and the stadium complex, but they were at the mercy of the group of residents (was it 27?) that wouldn't compromise at all.

Maybe you should temper your contempt or channel it in a different direction?

I should if that's the case. Possibly we'll never know who was the true power behind this. But clearly they were in favour of mutually assured destruction.

[TV Tom]

53 minutes ago, Port Said Red said:

It's good you said allegedly, because I was talking to one of the Green Councillors for our area at a friend's 50th party last weekend and this subject came up. 

She said there were initial concerns but they were all in favour of the compromise deal that SL offered, i.e.a fully landscaped  green area for locals between them and the stadium complex, but they were at the mercy of the group of residents (was it 27?) that wouldn't compromise at all.

Maybe you should temper your contempt or channel it in a different direction?

So you believe what a politician was telling you ?

[Port Said Red]

Just now, TV Tom said:

So you believe what a politician was telling you ?

I have known local councillors at different times in my life and I can't think of one I would call a "politician" usually just people who want to help the local area run properly. 

[Hxj]

3 hours ago, TV Tom said:

So you believe what a politician was telling you ?

If I know them unequivocally yes - I know numerous local representatives, parish council to County council, plus three MPs (one used to sit next to me at work ) and several members of the House of Lords. I am completely apolitical.

Only one is a complete prat.

The rest are totally and completely dedicated to the well being of their constituency (however defined), and spend far too many hours a week ensuring that their constituents have the best possible outcome.

The one is really a complete and total prat,

[Shockwave]

Any news on hearing today ?

[TinMan's left peg]

4 hours ago, Shockwave said:

Any news on hearing today ?

Can’t see it reported anywhere but presumably the ruling is done and dusted today.  Fingers crossed for a positive outcome then the bulldozers can role in on Monday after everyone watches England win the euros in the fan park on Sunday! 

[asfred]

Yeah strange that nothing has been  reported. Hopefully no news os good news!

[phantom]

Did it actually take place or was it adjourned to another date? 

[Mr Popodopolous]

You can Appeal vs a Judicial Review unfortunately, to the Court Of Appeal.

Albeit you can he liable for the costs of the other side in respect of a losing case e.g.

Unsure what limitations or criteria for Appeal, I know a little bit about this stuff but not much.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Apologies I'll correct, you can apply for permission to Appeal to the Court Of Appeal but further detail who knows.

[Crackers Corner]

With labour stating they want to cut planning red tape you would think that this will go through.

[Shockwave]

Like to think it was done and dusted but got a horrible feeling that this was a provisional date and main hearing will be a later date

[Barrs Court Red]

10 hours ago, Crackers Corner said:

With labour stating they want to cut planning red tape you would think that this will go through.

That’s going to take a few years sadly.  

[W-S-M Seagull]

11 hours ago, Crackers Corner said:

With labour stating they want to cut planning red tape you would think that this will go through.

Worth remembering that Labour were the government at the time of the village green fiasco. 

[The Humble Realist]

39 minutes ago, Barrs Court Red said:

That’s going to take a few years sadly.  

I may be a fool for believing as such but the way Labour talked during the campaign it sounded like the loosening of the laws would happen very quickly.

Why do you say it will take years? 

[Barrs Court Red]

15 minutes ago, The Humble Realist said:

I may be a fool for believing as such but the way Labour talked during the campaign it sounded like the loosening of the laws would happen very quickly.

Why do you say it will take years? 

The consultation will take at least a year. I’ve forgotten what comes next, I think they produce a white paper outlining what they will do, and then that generates a bill that needs to go through parliament.  
 

I think at best we’re looking at 2 years, although as it’s a manifesto pledge, it can’t be held up on the lords.  
 

Although we want it to change, planning is a really complicated beast so it’s the sort of topic that’s worth taking time over - shoddy law in this space could be extremely damaging. 

[The Bard]

12 hours ago, Crackers Corner said:

With labour stating they want to cut planning red tape you would think that this will go through.

This has already been through the process.

 

Every politician says they're going to cut red tape.  Meaningless phrase 

[Full nelson]

This ain't happening. Clearly ETM know they have a strong case and are happy to fight it all the way. 

[pogue malone]

Why dont city just pay the million for the new roof

[asfred]

5 minutes ago, pogue malone said:

Why dont city just pay the million for the new roof

Which, I assume, is what ETM thought City would do, rather than going down the judicial review route. It could be that City do buckle and pay it, but are waiting to hear about the next steps.

[1960maaan]

8 minutes ago, pogue malone said:

Why dont city just pay the million for the new roof

The little I know & understand . 
It isn't City but Steve.
The building work has already been passed and ETM complaints heard, and knocked back.
I heard SL had already made changes to comply with the concerns.
As a businessman why would you just buckle to something that seems a desperate try at getting a pay out ?

I did read that ETM may be breaking the rules/guidlines for noise , I think they wanted to go 24 hours which would also be a problem with local housing without the roof, which they don't want to pay for themselves .

 

[asfred]

Just been told that this has been postponed to later this month.

[GrahamC]

3 hours ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

Worth remembering that Labour were the government at the time of the village green fiasco. 

They weren’t, it was cancelled post 2010.

[Kid in the Riot]

8 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

They weren’t, it was cancelled post 2010.

It has zero relevance who was the national government anyway.

If Steve's planning consultants/lawyers had told him to secure the land (i.e. prevent public access) prior to making the planning application it wouldn't have been an issue. He was poorly advised. 

3 hours ago, Barrs Court Red said:

The consultation will take at least a year. I’ve forgotten what comes next, I think they produce a white paper outlining what they will do, and then that generates a bill that needs to go through parliament.  

I think at best we’re looking at 2 years, although as it’s a manifesto pledge, it can’t be held up on the lords.  

Although we want it to change, planning is a really complicated beast so it’s the sort of topic that’s worth taking time over - shoddy law in this space could be extremely damaging. 

Possibly. Though some things can be done quicker, they've already lifted the effective ban on onshore wind, for example. And they're releasing an update to the National Planning Policy Framework later this month. 

The more fundamental changes will take longer though. 

[RedRock]

2 hours ago, The Bard said:

This has already been through the process.

 

Every politician says they're going to cut red tape.  Meaningless phrase 

Good for ‘red tape’, providing it isn’t abused. A planning ‘free for all’ would result in the destruction of what fragments remain of our once beautiful Country. 

Don’t think the Government’s intended horrendous ‘build, build, build’ policy will have any impact on this case. It’s outside the planning domain now, to be decided on legal interpretations and finery. 

Admire Steve in away. A man of principle.

The problem is the delay is going to cost him £millions with building costs inflation. One assume we will all suffer, not only in the delay in producing a sport complex to be proud of, but quite possibly a scaled-back version of the original plans. A very high cost indeed. One wonders whether in the legal world there is any come-back if it is proven to frivolous claim - I have no reason mind to suspect that applies in this instance.

[archie andrews]

3 hours ago, Barrs Court Red said:

The consultation will take at least a year. I’ve forgotten what comes next, I think they produce a white paper outlining what they will do, and then that generates a bill that needs to go through parliament.  
 

I think at best we’re looking at 2 years, although as it’s a manifesto pledge, it can’t be held up on the lords.  
 

Although we want it to change, planning is a really complicated beast so it’s the sort of topic that’s worth taking time over - shoddy law in this space could be extremely damaging. 

Years ago it was sorted out on the back of a fag packet..... 

[phantom]

41 minutes ago, asfred said:

Just been told that this has been postponed to later this month.

Any idea why and what the new date is?

[RedRock]

6 minutes ago, archie andrews said:

Years ago it was sorted out on the back of a fag packet..... 

The opposite. Years ago we had some degree of planning. Despite ‘Thatch’ trying to totally undermine it. 

What other Country in the World would use an arbitery nationally-imposed housing totals multiplier … that an area had x housing total last year, we’re going to double it … without any reference the capacity for that area to take on that housing whether due to infrastructure or environmental constraints. Absolute lunacy.

The cascade approach of Regional, County, District Plans was the way to best deliver sustainable development; right place, right time. 

The only problem, at least from my experience of the hierarchical approach, was that key infrastructure providers like the Water Company - to name but one, actually the only one - was only passively involved, despite every attempt to engage with them. No doubt the reason, the water and sewerage systems can’t now cope with demand! Hey, but the ‘more houses, no infrastructure, more profit’ approach has rewarded their shareholders and CEOs magnificently. No doubt they think they’ve played a blinder. Shame on them.

[Bristol Rob]

1 hour ago, pogue malone said:

Why dont city just pay the million for the new roof

 Because that sets a dangerous expectation for anyone else objecting.

Want the Portishead line to stop at Ashton Gate, ask if Steve will pay for a station. That park and ride that people use..... let's close it, unless of course Steve shells out.

 

[asfred]

33 minutes ago, phantom said:

Any idea why and what the new date is?

Sorry no.

[pogue malone]

Seems Mr L is stymied by council every time he wants to invest and improve local infrastructure, how many non Bristolians are involved in the planning department .

[italian dave]

31 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

 Because that sets a dangerous expectation for anyone else objecting.

Want the Portishead line to stop at Ashton Gate, ask if Steve will pay for a station. That park and ride that people use..... let's close it, unless of course Steve shells out.

 

As City fans, we do set a bit of an example for doing that though……

[Mr Popodopolous]

18 minutes ago, pogue malone said:

Seems Mr L is stymied by council every time he wants to invest and improve local infrastructure, how many non Bristolians are involved in the planning department .

I think the council are not especially good for our club but this one sounds like it is on the company, ETM.

Last time out, ie Ashton Vale I forget the role of North Somerset Council tbh.

[Monkeh]

16 hours ago, Crackers Corner said:

With labour stating they want to cut planning red tape you would think that this will go through.

This case wouldn't be effected and it would have to stick to the previous planning rules

[phantom]

1 hour ago, Bristol Rob said:

Want the Portishead line to stop at Ashton Gate, ask if Steve will pay for a station. 

 

You wouldn't laugh if you knew the offer that was made 

[Basshead64]

34 minutes ago, pogue malone said:

Seems Mr L is stymied by council every time he wants to invest and improve local infrastructure, how many non Bristolians are involved in the planning department .

It would surely  pay the council to pay the million considering  housing  and jobs it will bring . Be nice for them to spend it on something  useful for a change.

[Kid in the Riot]

1 hour ago, pogue malone said:

Seems Mr L is stymied by council every time he wants to invest and improve local infrastructure, how many non Bristolians are involved in the planning department .

This is a legal challenge to a planning decision brought by ETM, not the council. 

[pogue malone]

7 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

This is a legal challenge to a planning decision brought by ETM, not the council. 

Oh right, 

 

[View from the Dolman]

 

[Lanterne Rouge]

15 minutes ago, View from the Dolman said:

It looks from the outside as if ETM have shot themselves in the foot here. They`ve pissed off the council so they are going to make them suffer for it.

By the time this gets resolved it would have been cheaper for them to have paid for the roof themselves!

 

[bcfc01]

45 minutes ago, View from the Dolman said:

 

Check.

Your move.

[Full nelson]

This thread will still be going in 10 years time

[Clevedon Red]

23 minutes ago, Full nelson said:

This thread will still be going in 10 years time

As will the constant loading of adverts on that hideous Bristol live website. 

[Dollymarie]

Can someone explain what this means? Can we crack on and get building now? As in BCC and ETM’s squabbles are unrelated to the building of the sporting quarter? 

[Davefevs]

4 minutes ago, Dollymarie said:

Can someone explain what this means? Can we crack on and get building now? As in BCC and ETM’s squabbles are unrelated to the building of the sporting quarter? 

My simple take is - no we can’t.  Because unless we can go ahead with Longmoor, we cant fund the SQ.

[Bristol Rob]

3 minutes ago, Dollymarie said:

Can someone explain what this means? Can we crack on and get building now? As in BCC and ETM’s squabbles are unrelated to the building of the sporting quarter? 

If I understand correctly, the outcome of the BCC and ETM dispute will impact the potential return for whoever develops the land, which in turn might mean less money is realised than hoped, which could in turn leave a shortfall in funding for the Sporting Quarter.

#MovingParts.

I dare say a finer and more informed mind than mine will point out where I went wrong.

[RedRock]

3 minutes ago, Dollymarie said:

Can someone explain what this means? Can we crack on and get building now? As in BCC and ETM’s squabbles are unrelated to the building of the sporting quarter? 

From a distant, cursory glance, this latest thing is a separate - though semi-related - planning issue to the housing/sporting quarter case. 

Until the separate ETM case is heard makes no real difference. So given we’ve delayed things to date, no change in the position for us.

Not local but I assume ETM have taken an injunction out on our housing development? No legal expert, but is there compensation awarded to the owner/developer when an injunction fails to be sustained/case lost?

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

This intervention could hopefully get ETM to fold but part of me thinks or fears that it will muddy the waters and a 2 way scrap becoming a 2.5-3 way scrap will just drag it out and it will sadly be pushed further into the distance.

Cost, benefit, resolution trade-off.

Edited July 12 by Mr Popodopolous

[Bristol Rob]

5 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

This intervention could hopefully get ETM to fold but part of me thinks or fears that it will muddy the waters and a 2 way scrap becoming a 2.5-3 way scrap will just drag it out and it will sadly be pushed further into the distance.

Cost, benefit, resolution trade-off.

Are ETM a cash-rich org, or more likely to consider the threat of job losses as part of their position?

[Mr Popodopolous]

4 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

Are ETM a cash-rich org, or more likely to consider the threat of job losses as part of their position?

ETM Construction & Recycling Holdings had £2.1m in Cash and Cash Equivalents as of the last Accounts. Although SL is a billionaire and the Council are the Council.

They could probably go on for a bit longer, I dunno if they are part of ETM Group or if that is totally separate.

Know nothing of their Owners either, whether particularly wealthy or. In theory could they put all of their disposable Cash Reserves/Equivalents and Cash into it, £2.1m or whatever proportion is prudent for as long as it lasts.

[Bristol Rob]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

ETM Construction & Recycling Holdings had £2.1m in Cash and Cash Equivalents as of the last Accounts. Although SL is a billionaire and the Council are the Council.

They could probably go on for a bit longer, I dunno if they are part of ETM Group or if that is totally separate.

Know nothing of their Owners either, whether particularly wealthy or. In theory could they put all of their disposable Cash Reserves/Equivalents and Cash into it, £2.1m or whatever proportion is prudent for as long as it lasts.

If they end up on the losing side and found liable for costs, they might not have the pockets to proceed, for the sake of a million quid to build what they need, you can soon lose that on fees.

A few idle threats, the odd compromise on a golf course and a day at the races and hopefully it'll be a case of 'we made our position clear, but we will protect what we have'.

Basically, Carrott in a box, waste edition.

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

If they end up on the losing side and found liable for costs, they might not have the pockets to proceed, for the sake of a million quid to build what they need, you can soon lose that on fees.

A few idle threats, the odd compromise on a golf course and a day at the races and hopefully it'll be a case of 'we made our position clear, but we will protect what we have'.

Basically, Carrott in a box, waste edition.

It is hard to say as I've noticed their directors put in almost as much as they took out in respect of the Business and Idk if you could reduce the Dividend to minority Shareholders if required.

Legal costs can rack up and up but a quick Judicial Review search makes me wonder.

[Port Said Red]

9 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

ETM Construction & Recycling Holdings had £2.1m in Cash and Cash Equivalents as of the last Accounts. Although SL is a billionaire and the Council are the Council.

They could probably go on for a bit longer, I dunno if they are part of ETM Group or if that is totally separate.

Know nothing of their Owners either, whether particularly wealthy or. In theory could they put all of their disposable Cash Reserves/Equivalents and Cash into it, £2.1m or whatever proportion is prudent for as long as it lasts.

They run a business that more rightly should run out in Avonmouth, there are still plenty of sites that could be suitable for their work. I wonder if a deal could be done to get them to move and even more homes to be built in SL's project? 

[downendcity]

9 hours ago, The Bard said:

This has already been through the process.

 

Every politician says they're going to cut red tape.  Meaningless phrase 

Other than when they cut the red tape when they open something!

[Mr Popodopolous]

23 minutes ago, Port Said Red said:

They run a business that more rightly should run out in Avonmouth, there are still plenty of sites that could be suitable for their work. I wonder if a deal could be done to get them to move and even more homes to be built in SL's project? 

That could be a creative solution where everybody wins?

Perhaps also as a carrot in the fullness of time if they play ball, although ties would be troubled right now, main energy efficiency contractor or whatever their expertise is for SL's new project.

The Lead Contractor in a growing and vibrant project...but only if you play ball.

Edited July 12 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Carrot and stick.

Contractual potential incentives vs SL and or the Council pursuing major legal challenges and maybe the Licencing stuff.

No £1m up front payment though, that's just ridiculous.

[Lanterne Rouge]

I`m amazed ETM were allowed to build a waste disposal facility on that lovely village green in the first place................................

[Bristol Rob]

34 minutes ago, downendcity said:

Other than when they cut the red tape when they open something!

What happened to that?

The co-op on Gloucester Road just opened a bigger site, in days of old supermarkets would wheel out some sort of television personality to cut the ribbon.

These days, it's just a case of 'yeah, the baked beans are on aisle 3'.

No wonder this country has gone down the toilet.